I still don't understand why evolution is such a threat to Christianity.

Why can't a good Christian like Fellowship accept the Bible for what it is? A book of parables!

Oh my Gosh(TM)! They are trying to prove that Methuseleh wasn't 1000 years old!!! They didn't actually get two of every species on the ark! Moses didn't "part" the Red Sea into two halves with cascading walls of water on either side! If I don't resist their explanation I'm going to heeelllllll1ll1!!!!

I still don't understand why evolution is such a threat to Christianity.

Why can't a good Christian like Fellowship accept the Bible for what it is? A book of parables!

Oh my Gosh(TM)! They are trying to prove that Methuseleh wasn't 1000 years old!!! They didn't actually get two of every species on the ark! Moses didn't "part" the Red Sea into two halves with cascading walls of water on either side! If I don't resist their explanation I'm going to heeelllllll1ll1!!!!

Indeed, it does seem odd. European Christians, on the whole, do not deny evolution. The official stance of the Catholic Church does not deny evolution. Anyone know what the stances of Islam, Hinduism and Judaism are?

Indeed, it does seem odd. European Christians, on the whole, do not deny evolution. The official stance of the Catholic Church does not deny evolution. Anyone know what the stances of Islam, Hinduism and Judaism are?

Judaism isn't a centralized religion; nor is Hinduism. Islam might have been at one point , but it is now fractured. So it is difficult to pin down a single ideology on evolution for the various sects and congregations of these religions.

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

I still don't understand why evolution is such a threat to Christianity.

Christianity teaches men that they were created by an all-powerful god, and are worthless pieces of crap who need to beg and plead for forgiveness and apologize profusely and constantly for their wretched existences.

Science teaches men that they are merely an animal, like all other animals, connected in a huge, branching bush of evolutionary change with no inherent state of horrific penury and loathsomeness.

Godless Iceland tops the world in believing in the truth of evolution.

First Björk, now this.

Well, I'm Icelandic/American and I believe in evolution... derrrr, because it's not a belief, it's fact. Belief is like faith... it doesn't need facts to back it up. It is whatever you want it to be. Evolution is scientific fact. Dismiss science and you might as well dismiss gravity and float your stupid ass into space.

Well, I'm Icelandic/American and I believe in evolution... derrrr, because it's not a belief, it's fact. Belief is like faith... it doesn't need facts to back it up. It is whatever you want it to be. Evolution is scientific fact. Dismiss science and you might as well dismiss gravity and float your stupid ass into space.

I think you'll find it is actually a theory - or group of theories, some of them conflicting.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

I think you'll find it is actually a theory - or group of theories, some of them conflicting.

Semantics. In science, a theory means something quite different than in colloquial language. A scientific theory is nothing more than an explanatory framework that makes sense of known observations and makes predictions about future observations.

There are differing levels of theories: theories like Gravity, Relativity, and Evolution are credible, well-tested and verified by facts. They can still turn out to be wrong -- like any scientific theory -- and they are refined every time new observations are made, but at this point, the evidence so overwhelmingly supports these theorems, that they might as well be taken as "facts". This is similar to how you drive across a bridge, knowing (though perhaps ignoring) that it could collapse, but understanding that the likelihood of this happening is so remote that you ought to simply go about your life as if it will not happen; trusting that city engineers are constantly testing the structural integrity of the bridge to see that it is still sound.

Other theories are discredited or discarded, but these, too, are scientific theories as they make predictions that can be tested through experimentation. One example of a discarded theory is the Ether. 100 or so years ago, when light was first discovered to be a wave, it was postulated that if light was a wave, then it would need a medium to propagate through: sound had air, and water waves had water, so light needed the ether. This particular theory never quite panned out, and was discarded on the heap of failed ideas (though I hear that it's making a come-back of sorts).

Yet other theories are untested. String Theory is the obvious example at the moment. Athough it looks like a promising mathematical model, no one has really devised a way to test it adequately. Until then, it's just a pretty mathematical model.

There may be other ways of classifying scientific theories, but you get the point.

I would, however, challenge you to produce real conflict in evolution. At this point there is much debate about the forces that drive evolution: how much role did natural selection play? what role did sexual selection have in the process? Does evolution act slowly? or is it punctuated? or some combination? are there other forces at work? how can we observe these? But the basic "fact" of evolution hasn't been debated for decades (other than religious people who bring up the same tired arguments over and over -- irreducible complexity, anyone?), perhaps even since Darwin.

The last word that I'll leave is a little anecdote from last Thanksgiving. As is proper for all holidays when families get together, I got in a debate with my brother about evolution. He is a Christian and thinks, like many people, that there must be some conspiracy among scientists to prop up what he sees as a demonstrably false "theory." What made me the angriest about the exchange was that my brother completed his undergraduate degree in Biology. His university failed him that he came out of his degree with no appreciation for what evolution actually is.

I shared my dismay with my girlfriend, who is a PhD candidate in Cell Biology at UNC Chapel Hill. She snorted at my brother's belief and said, "well, I guess I should just quit my program right now, because if evolution is not true then none of my experiments will work."

That is how working biological scientists see this whole debate. Those, whose business it is to understand and even exploit evolutionary theory for in their daily work, see evolution as completely self-evident. The consensus of the scientific (biological) community is almost completely united in acceptance of evolutionary theory. It is absurd to think that there is some conspiracy among these working scientists to trick the public. It is as absurd as believing that the Jewish Holocaust didn't happen, that Castro killed JFK or that Bush orchestrated 9/11. Evolution is tested and re-confirmed every single day. It is among the most tested theory that humans have ever devised. It is a "fact."

*"fact" is of course in quotations as, in science, there are no facts in the absolute sense of the word.

I've also seen it the other way. But, if someone (on either side) was an actual 'true believer' then I don't think that they could be won over, right? If they were able to be converted, then they obviously had to have had some seed of doubt to begin with that was open to exploitation (for lack of a better term).

I've also seen it the other way. But, if someone (on either side) was an actual 'true believer' then I don't think that they could be won over, right? If they were able to be converted, then they obviously had to have had some seed of doubt to begin with that was open to exploitation (for lack of a better term).

Isn't that the most disgusting feature of "faith:" if the believer stumbles, it's always the believer's fault (lack of faith) and never the belief system! "God closes a door and opens a window" sort of shit.

IIRC, evolving drug resistance works in that the proverbial 'lock' that the matches the drug's 'key' is broken, rendering that pathway useless. If you remove the drug, the drug resistance tends to go away as well, since the broken 'lock' is a statistical rarity.

I wouldn't imagine this case with the butterflies are any different.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

the tendency for loss of resistance (as you describe, which is not the only mechanism and is in fact a rare mechanism for antimicrobial resistance (more common are enzymes which break down the drug or cellular transport components that begin to export the drug out of the cell, in the case of cellular life) is only true when the mutation has a selective disadvantage in the absence of selection pressure. Otherwise, loss of resistance in a population would see no preferential growth.

There are numerous examples of stable resistance mutations...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

the tendency for loss of resistance (as you describe, which is not the only mechanism and is in fact a rare mechanism for antimicrobial resistance (more common are enzymes which break down the drug or cellular transport components that begin to export the drug out of the cell, in the case of cellular life) is only true when the mutation has a selective disadvantage in the absence of selection pressure. Otherwise, loss of resistance in a population would see no preferential growth.

There are numerous examples of stable resistance mutations...

I'm with you 100% on the various support function/pathway 'locks' that may break down (and even become ensconced in the population.) But this is more of the same: the recent 'seven-legged sheep' is not much more or less, conceptually.

It just seemed strange to cite the butterfly thing as 'revelational,' in the grand scheme of things.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Sure, but when Creationists sit there decrying the lack of evidence of evolution (or even, now of simply microevolution), stories of butterfly populations responding to selective pressure makes for a rousing debunking.

The issue of course being that the technical details of evolution at the molecular level escape most people -- a story on the molecular change needed for the butterfly resistance is far more interesting and fundamental, and gets at the core of evolution than saying that the population's sex bias has disappeared. But these details confuse people who don't understand what a protein is any further than the need to eat it.

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

Sure, but when Creationists sit there decrying the lack of evidence of evolution (or even, now of simply microevolution), stories of butterfly populations responding to selective pressure makes for a rousing debunking.

The issue of course being that the technical details of evolution at the molecular level escape most people -- a story on the molecular change needed for the butterfly resistance is far more interesting and fundamental, and gets at the core of evolution than saying that the population's sex bias has disappeared. But these details confuse people who don't understand what a protein is any further than the need to eat it.

Evolution? Mutation is more like it. Possibly Micro-evolution (but even that is pushing it a bit). A cool thing that helped a species to possibly have it survive natural extinction. Interesting, but hardly earth shattering. Things change, people sometimes are albinos, or immune to HIV. Just a genetic trait, nothing more. You will likely see the same thing happen to the butterflies again as the recessive gene becomes less prominant and the bacteria gets its foothold once more.

On another note, this reminded me of those bee colonies that were/are (I believe this is still going on) dying off in mass numbers? I saw the story, may have to find a link again. Perhaps they will see a similar rebound as well?

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

What on Earth do you think evolution is? It's a series of mutations over time that lead to an overall change in physiological features.

Flippers can grow into legs over time, tails can be lost, arms can change to wings.

The key here is time. Which is also the key to the creationists' ability to spread doubt. Since we can't "witness an arm change into a wing" it might not have happened at all, except by God's hand. Which has oh sooooo much evidence supporting that argument...

On another note, this reminded me of those bee colonies that were/are (I believe this is still going on) dying off in mass numbers? I saw the story, may have to find a link again. Perhaps they will see a similar rebound as well?

the bee thing was caused by a gravitational time distortion in the solar reference frame causing massive x-class solar flares to be emitted which warped the earths magnetic field with caused mobile phones to give off a killer signal which disorientated the bees psychological traits. But only the ones born between January and October, which is why some bees still live.

Keep that under your hat, and under no circumstances let hardeharhar in on the secret.

What on Earth do you think evolution is? It's a series of mutations over time that lead to an overall change in physiological features.

Flippers can grow into legs over time, tails can be lost, arms can change to wings.

The key here is time. Which is also the key to the creationists' ability to spread doubt. Since we can't "witness an arm change into a wing" it might not have happened at all, except by God's hand. Which has oh sooooo much evidence supporting that argument...

Let me know when they change into some other type of butterfly not previously documented before. Then we may be able to talk evolution. Otherwise, your sarcasm gets us nowhere.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

I am not an idiot, nor a believer in evolution. That does not make me stupid, dense or otherwise uinintelligent.

I do believe that an organsim can adapt to a circumstance or situation to survive but for it to evolve into a completely different organsim, not so much. If you want to deride me for that, go ahead. Seems rather childish though.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

By the way, you don't seem to know what sarcasm means. Tonton was not being sarcastic.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is not an ass and would not call someone that he hardly knows something that he has no real experience to judge based on a couple of comments read on a message board.

Glad you can speak up for him though. I am sure he appreciates it.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

But when the team returned in 2006, they found almost as many as females as males. A single male may have developed a mutation that allowed it and its male offspring to evade Wolbachia's hold and pass on their genes, the researchers argue.

It's not yet clear how the butterfly does this or how long its evasive maneuver might work. It's possible that Wolbachia could soon evolve to regain its male-killing ability.

Just kidding. I think that is a valid point, but do not believe that it will make any points in the conversation as it stands. Likely responses include a description of the scientific method and how this is a normal part of it. Hopefully not followed by how you are an idiot if you disagree.

I think it a neat story about how the butterfly survived, I do not believe it proves evolution out, but it does prove that creatures are designed to survive if at all possible.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

I think it a neat story about how the butterfly survived, I do not believe it proves evolution out, but it does prove that creatures are designed to survive if at all possible.

I agree 100%. It is a neat story, yet anyone using it as evidence for anything other than a particular butterfly species seems to have survived a potentially devastating natural disaster needs to realize that they're building castles in the sky, not arguing logically.

I agree 100%. It is a neat story, yet anyone using it as evidence for anything other than a particular butterfly species seems to have survived a potentially devastating natural disaster needs to realize that they're building castles in the sky, not arguing logically.

You two might actually try to read the article in Science and stop YOUR OWN conjectures!

The science presented is quite sound.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!